Examining the supposed "Whole Bible" view. - No consensus?

[St. SteVen]

Another Strawman has appeared.

Yes. Thanks for joining us, - LOL



/

 

[St. SteVen]

From the OP.

Seems too many make an idol of their personal interpretation of the Bible.
Claiming theirs is the only truth and that others are "of the devil" because their view differs.
What's wrong with this picture? Misplaced allegiance. Religious fiefdoms.
Building walls, instead of bridges.

- What is the purpose of the Bible?
- Should the Bible be used to cause division?
- Where is your allegiance ultimately?



]

 

[St. SteVen]

Seems too many make an idol of their personal interpretation of the Bible.
Claiming theirs is the only truth and that others are "of the devil" because their view differs.
What's wrong with this picture? Misplaced allegiance. Religious fiefdoms.
Building walls, instead of bridges.

- What is the purpose of the Bible?
- Should the Bible be used to cause division?
- Where is your allegiance ultimately?

[

 

[St. SteVen]

I encounter this statement a lot...
Someone discounts a scripture I quote as
not possibly meaning what it plainly says because...
It doesn't fit the "whole Bible" view. ???
As if there is consensus on what that even means,

- Is there such a thing as a "whole Bible" view?
- Is there consensus on what that means?
- Is there reasonable latitude in what that could mean?

It's not enough to simply claim, "Whatever the Bible says."
Doesn't seem to be enough consensus to make such a broad claim. ???

[

 

[David Lamb]

I encounter this statement a lot...
Someone discounts a scripture I quote as
not possibly meaning what it plainly says because...
It doesn't fit the "whole Bible" view. ???
As if there is consensus on what that even means,

- Is there such a thing as a "whole Bible" view?
- Is there consensus on what that means?
- Is there reasonable latitude in what that could mean?

It's not enough to simply claim, "Whatever the Bible says."
Doesn't seem to be enough consensus to make such a broad claim. ???

[

I don't know whether there is such a thing as a whole bible view, unless it means the need, especially with passages that are difficulty to understand, to compare the passage we are reading/studying with the rest of scriptural teaching. For example, these words of Jesus:

“"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” (Lu 14:26 NKJV)

Taken in isolation, that verse seems to have Jesus teaching that in order to be Christians, we must actively hate our nearest and dearest. However, when we look at scriptural teaching about what our attitude to our parents should be, we find that that cannot be the case. Also, when we look at the equivalent account in Matthew, we find the meaning to be clearer:

“"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” (Mt 10:37 NKJV)

 

[Behold]

Seems too many make an idol of their personal interpretation of the Bible.

Your opinion is ill informed and not related to common sense.

 

[St. SteVen]

I don't know whether there is such a thing as a whole bible view, unless it means the need, especially with passages that are difficulty to understand, to compare the passage we are reading/studying with the rest of scriptural teaching. For example, these words of Jesus:

“"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” (Lu 14:26 NKJV)

Taken in isolation, that verse seems to have Jesus teaching that in order to be Christians, we must actively hate our nearest and dearest. However, when we look at scriptural teaching about what our attitude to our parents should be, we find that that cannot be the case. Also, when we look at the equivalent account in Matthew, we find the meaning to be clearer:

“"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” (Mt 10:37 NKJV)

Agree.
Too often the "whole Bible" view is presented as a subjective rather than objective stance.
But as you demonstrated, it requires some work and discussion of opinion to arrive there.
Results may vary. - LOL

[

 

[Behold]

Agree.
Too often the "whole Bible" view is presented as a subjective rather than objective stance.
But as you demonstrated, it requires some work and discussion of opinion to arrive there.
Results may vary. - LOL

One of the reasons that most Christians are stuck in the dark, and can't deal with the bible, is because they are stranded in their carnal mind, believing that the word of God can be assessed by "objective or subjective" analysis.

 

[shepherdsword]

As a follow-up to this previous topic...

In BIBLE we trust? - Misplaced allegiance?

Seems too many make an idol of their personal interpretation of the Bible.
Claiming theirs is the only truth and that others are "of the devil" because their view differs.
What's wrong with this picture? Misplaced allegiance. Religious fiefdoms.
Building walls, instead of bridges.

- What is the purpose of the Bible?
- Should the Bible be used to cause division?
- Where is your allegiance ultimately?
_______________________________________________________________________

I encounter this statement a lot...
Someone discounts a scripture I quote as
not possibly meaning what it plainly says because...
It doesn't fit the "whole Bible" view. ???
As if there is consensus on what that even means,

- Is there such a thing as a "whole Bible" view?
- Is there consensus on what that means?
- Is there reasonable latitude in what that could mean?

It's not enough to simply claim, "Whatever the Bible says."
Doesn't seem to be enough consensus to make such a broad claim. ???

/

I think context is vital to any accurate interpretation of the bible. However, there are times when certain verses have a GLOBAL context and CAN be taken out of their intended context. Example:

Revelation 3: Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if any man hear my voice I will come in and sup with him

Technically, the context is to actual believers in Ephesus. However, we can cite this verse in a gospel message to the unsaved because it applies to all men. Trusting in the bible is not misplaced allegiance. It is the word of God. There is a much greater danger in having an allegiance to some pontificated verbal tradition.

Mk 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[ScottA]

As a follow-up to this previous topic...

In BIBLE we trust? - Misplaced allegiance?

Seems too many make an idol of their personal interpretation of the Bible.
Claiming theirs is the only truth and that others are "of the devil" because their view differs.
What's wrong with this picture? Misplaced allegiance. Religious fiefdoms.
Building walls, instead of bridges.

- What is the purpose of the Bible?
- Should the Bible be used to cause division?
- Where is your allegiance ultimately?
_______________________________________________________________________

I encounter this statement a lot...
Someone discounts a scripture I quote as
not possibly meaning what it plainly says because...
It doesn't fit the "whole Bible" view. ???
As if there is consensus on what that even means,

- Is there such a thing as a "whole Bible" view?
- Is there consensus on what that means?
- Is there reasonable latitude in what that could mean?

It's not enough to simply claim, "Whatever the Bible says."
Doesn't seem to be enough consensus to make such a broad claim. ???

/

Scripture, the word of God, i.e. the Bible, is like a glacier ticking down ever so slowly "precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little there a little." Only some of which is visible or written in full measure. And that portion of all that is actually written? Is confused [by God] right along with all "the language of all the earth."

The point is...we should understand that--it is intentionally so.

So, yes, the Bible (for one) can itself become an idol, or a weapon, or a stronghold, or even a place of hiding.

More importantly, the words "are spirit"--and just as Jesus identified the means by which He would build His church, speaking to Peter and how he had come to the knowledge that Jesus was the Christ--not by flesh and blood, was by the unwritten words that come from our Father in heaven. Again, meaning--only some of the words are written as we define what is written, as on parchment or paper.

Why then should we argue or debate over the wording? Perhaps we should not. Perhaps we should know better than to let the devil tempt us so. Perhaps we need to be reminded that "we do not wrestle against flesh and blood" or each other. But just as the words from God are inspired, are not also the rebuttals. Surely some are. But when these things were young, what clarifying voice did God provide? Men studying and debating like lawyers stating their case? No.

 

[St. SteVen]

Seems too many make an idol
of their personal interpretation of the Bible.
Claiming theirs is the only truth and that others are "of the devil" because their view differs.
What's wrong with this picture? Misplaced allegiance. Religious fiefdoms.
Building walls, instead of bridges.

- What is the purpose of the Bible?
- Should the Bible be used to cause division?
- Where is your allegiance ultimately?
_______________________________________________________________________

I encounter this statement a lot...
Someone discounts a scripture I quote as
not possibly meaning what it plainly says because...
It doesn't fit the "whole Bible" view. ???
As if there is consensus on what that even means,

- Is there such a thing as a "whole Bible" view?
- Is there consensus on what that means?
- Is there reasonable latitude in what that could mean?

It's not enough to simply claim, "Whatever the Bible says."
Doesn't seem to be enough consensus to make such a broad claim. ???

_______________________________________________________________________

As a follow-up to this previous topic...

In BIBLE we trust? - Misplaced allegiance?

[

 

[Lambano]

There are two elephants in the room:

1. THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE as a "coherent whole." Those who try to convince themselves it does work themselves into a species of madness.
...
2. THE CHRISTIAN NARRATIVE MAKES NO SENSE at anything other than the 30,000-foot level. It's like an oil painting - eight feet away, it's beautiful; up-close it's kind of a mess. All the "heresies" tried to deal with how God as Christianity posits Him to be could possibly create and allow to exist a world with such overwhelming flaws and rampant evil. The Gnostics and Manichaens were honest enough to say "He couldn't." All "heresies" likewise tried to deal with who and what Jesus actually was.

All the illustrations of Hans Christian Andersen's The Emperor's New Clothes I could find on the internet all have him wearing skivvies.

One of the reasons that most Christians are stuck in the dark, and can't deal with the bible, is because they are stranded in their carnal mind, believing that the word of God can be assessed by "objective or subjective" analysis.

And there's the Gnostic promise - if we only had enlightenment, all of this would make sense.

 

[St. SteVen]

if we only had enlightenment, all of this would make sense.

As much as we want that, seems it's not meant to be.
(unless you ask a Christian - they got this) - LOL

[

 

[Lambano]

And there's the Gnostic promise - if we only had enlightenment, all of this would make sense.

And all those who would call "B***S***! The emperor's got no clothes on!" are obviously not enlightened and "thinking with their carnal minds".

Oh, my people, my people.

 

[St. SteVen]

The emperor's got no clothes on!"

Interesting, that could be interpreted two ways:
1) The King is naked.
2) The King is in his undergarments.

[

 

[Lambano]

Interesting, that could be interpreted two ways:
1) The King is naked.
2) The King is in his undergarments.

3) The King always wore women's panties, fishnet stockings, and a bra underneath his clothes, but nobody knew that until now.

 

[St. SteVen]

3) The King always wore women's panties, fishnet stockings, and a bra underneath his clothes, but nobody knew that until now.

Like my Dad used to say...
"Be sure your sin will find you out." - LOL

[

 

[Lambano]

Like my Dad used to say...
"Be sure your sin will find you out." - LOL

I've heard a few preachers say that too.

 

[St. SteVen]

I've heard a few preachers say that too.

It's actually a biblical quote.

Numbers 32:23 KJV
But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the Lord:
and be sure your sin will find you out.

[

 

[Behold]

And there's the Gnostic promise - if we only had enlightenment, all of this would make sense.

Christians have to receive revelation, as they start out on day 1, as a theologically ignorant "babe in Christ".
So, depending on who gets to them first.......is going to decide what they learn, and what they learn defines then as enlightened, or deceived.
Hebrews 13:9 tells you to do something with you heart, that is the foundation of all correct (Pauline) theology, and if you dont do it, early on... you'll never be enlightened, you'll just become theologically confused and more and more deceived by man made teachings that are defined as "doctrines of devils".